NASA's concept spaceship for interstellar travel WOW

[pycco]

ORIGINAL: MikeSF

ORIGINAL: pycco

the energy wave this would release would keep growing in every aspect until it hits something, what would that kind of energy do to a star?

And as the wave grows the total total energy density shrinks proportional to the square of the distance, meaning twice as far away 1/4th the energy that would hit any object.

I'm just curious how one can calculate how moving space interacts with "non-moving" space, the talk of particles destroy the ship? How? If a particle is not moving, when it enters the "moving space" it won't suddenly accelerate to FTL speeds, it should be all accounts remain non moving, or the moving space might push it out of the way. Eh, never taught us any of the stuff when I was in graduate school!

↓

ORIGINAL: Tcby

A physicist friend of mine did some number crunching on this subject. The basic problem is that exiting warp would obliterate anything near you upon arrival.... heh

source: http://sydney.edu.au/news/science/397.h ... oryid=8790

'Brendan McMonigal said, "Interestingly, the energy burst released upon arriving at the destination does not have an upper limit. You can just keep on traveling for longer and longer distances and the energy that will be released will continue to increase - one of the odd effects of General Relativity.

"Even for very short journeys the energy released is so large that you would completely obliterate anything in front of you," said Brendan.'

source: http://sydney.edu.au/news/science/397.h ... oryid=8790

'Brendan McMonigal said, "Interestingly, the energy burst released upon arriving at the destination does not have an upper limit. You can just keep on traveling for longer and longer distances and the energy that will be released will continue to increase - one of the odd effects of General Relativity.

"Even for very short journeys the energy released is so large that you would completely obliterate anything in front of you," said Brendan.'

and as for the particles moving in space its the force at which your vessel would be colliding with them that would cause the damage. this is why the military uses rail guns, small bullets going really really really fast to make a big boom the ship would be the bullet in this scenario.

[FingNewGuy]

Hold you horsies there.

We can barely manage a weak Casmir Effect of 1/20,000 of a Volt, let alone the amount needed to make an FTL spacecraft. We will eventually, but I seriously doubt the trillions of dollars required will be parted with in 6 years

No,not even close. It is highly unlikely that there will be any Mars colony within the stated time frame either. Not being pessimistic, rather realistic.

[pycco]

only time will tell on this one they even have the crew picked.

you don't know what you don't know until you know it.

“Two possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.”
Arthur C. Clarke

[FingNewGuy]

We are killing our own planet... I'd rather we did not go anywhere else and bullocks up others.[:(]

[Max 86]

The picture kind of reminds me of what a space ship would look like if it had training wheels. Those rings around it take all the coolness out of her body. Roddenberry would shudder. [:D]

[fenrislokison]

hmm... no no, we're not killing the planet, just us (and a lot of others species). The main issue being, i think, overpopulation.

But Earth already has faced a lot of massive extinctions without life disappereance. Cyanobacterias have already self-destruct a long time ago (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_catastrophe).
With a little research, i think we can find other examples of a species destroying its own environment because of overpopulation.

So not only do i think we're not killing the planet, i don't even think we're a really bad species, we're just doing what we are supposed to do: breed, breed and breed some more, everything else being just details.

In fact, we're unlucky. We're sufficiently aware to realize we're killing ourselves, but not enough to do something else.

But space exploration and exploitation maybe our real chance. If we have the ability to lay waste elsewhere, on dead planets like the Moon or Mars, maybe we'll do it less on Earth (saving our asses in the process).


Of course, this could be quicker if i'm selected as the main ruler of Earth! After all, i won plenty of DW games! [:D]

[Mansen]

ORIGINAL: fenrislokison

hmm... no no, we're not killing the planet, just us (and a lot of others species). The main issue being, i think, overpopulation.

Quite the opposite - We're naturally counter-populating.

[FingNewGuy]

ORIGINAL: Max 86

The picture kind of reminds me of what a space ship would look like if it had training wheels. Those rings around it take all the coolness out of her body. Roddenberry would shudder. [:D]

LOL!

[FingNewGuy]

ORIGINAL: fenrislokison

hmm... no no, we're not killing the planet, just us (and a lot of others species). The main issue being, i think, overpopulation.

But Earth already has faced a lot of massive extinctions without life disappereance. Cyanobacterias have already self-destruct a long time ago (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_catastrophe).
With a little research, i think we can find other examples of a species destroying its own environment because of overpopulation.

So not only do i think we're not killing the planet, i don't even think we're a really bad species, we're just doing what we are supposed to do: breed, breed and breed some more, everything else being just details.

In fact, we're unlucky. We're sufficiently aware to realize we're killing ourselves, but not enough to do something else.

But space exploration and exploitation maybe our real chance. If we have the ability to lay waste elsewhere, on dead planets like the Moon or Mars, maybe we'll do it less on Earth (saving our asses in the process).


Of course, this could be quicker if i'm selected as the main ruler of Earth! After all, i won plenty of DW games! [:D]

hmm... no no, we're not killing the planet, just us (and a lot of others species)

To clarify, that is what 'killing the planet' means. Naturally I do not imply that we can kill the third rock from the sun.

But Earth already has faced a lot of massive extinctions without life disappereance.

I said nothing about life disappearing. Submitted for your consideration: please do some quick research on conditions in the Pacific Ocean. Clue: I am NOT referring to Fukushima in this regard.

With a little research, i think we can find other examples of a species destroying its own environment because of overpopulation.

I am quite certain that we can. That, however, in no way, shape or form excuses us humans doing the same.

So not only do i think we're not killing the planet, i don't even think we're a really bad species, we're just doing what we are supposed to do: breed, breed and breed some more, everything else being just details.

What we are supposed to do??? [X(]I am overjoyed that I violently disagree with you on these points! [:-]

In fact, we're unlucky. We're sufficiently aware to realize we're killing ourselves, but not enough to do something else.

In fact, that is the very definition of insanity- luck having squat to do with the issue. Repeatedly following the same course of action (breed, breed, breed) and achieving the previously observed, undesirable result (ibid) is insane. AND THEN not correcting said course of action and decrying our luck...[8|]

But space exploration and exploitation maybe our real chance. If we have the ability to lay waste elsewhere, on dead planets like the Moon or Mars, maybe we'll do it less on Earth (saving our asses in the process).

Laying our waste elsewhere!? That is EXACTLY what I do not want to see us do. For starters, how about being proactive and changing our habits so that we have a far more sustainable situation (and FAR less waste) to deposit anywhere? Hmmm? And as stated previously, our civiliztion would much rather squander trillions on war and surveillance than on more productive pursuits such as space travel. [:)]

[Antiscamp]

Cool ship! Bad thing we're not welcome out there.

[FingNewGuy]

Yep.

[pycco]

ya the oceans are so bad the plastic alone is killing countless species, we could fix it quite easily we just don't want to put the $$$ forward to do so even though its just paper the day will come when we have done so much damage that storms will wipe man kind from the face of the earth.

i agree that until we learn to control are self's and not destroy every thing we touch, we should just stay on earth and deal with it here not spread like a plague to other planets with no regard to what we are doing to the countless species we have killed.

[FingNewGuy]

[tjhkkr]

ORIGINAL: Haree78
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/holy-crap-nasas-interplanetary-spaceship-concept-is-fr-1589001939/1589277571/+jesusdiaz

That is way-cool!

[FingNewGuy]

And that is so going nowhere! [:)]

[fenrislokison]

@FingNewGuy: you know, we're not really in disagreement on the situation analysis.

Humankind is walking a path leading to self destruction (quite dramatic sentence but well...).

Your solution is to change our behaviour until we are ready/we deserve to go somewhere else, good (but who is the judge?)

My opinion is that we are not able to change, to the point it's not even worth trying. We're lazy, selfish, frightened, stupid and for most of us, unable to control our own emotions.

Therefore i think it's better to channel our inner instincts where they won't be so destructive, for example space, dead planets and other places like that that are already far worse than the worse areas of Earth anyways (Venus being a very good example).

Then maybe, with luck (because thinking we're having our fate in our hands is ...eh... let's say a bit too optimistic), we'll leave Earth ecosystem alone since we'll have other ways to do things.

[FingNewGuy]

We're lazy, selfish, frightened, stupid

We can change that, as human beings- can't we? Please.

[feygan]

Another NASA pr stunt is what this comes across as. If you look further into the details they have a section marked similar to "Important power component here" on the blueprints. The problem being is that at this time that power component runs on unicorn poo and fairy dust. All that has happened here is a chap with an obvious great mind has taken a perfectly good theory and refined it a tiny fraction to make it need only 10 tons of fairy dust compared to the original 100 tons.

Even if someone were to front the cash right now for all the various parts needed the thing still would not fly as it has no power source and at our current rate of research is likely to sit in the parking bay for at least another 100 years.

More and more often recently NASA has been responsible for zero actual discovery. They take ideas that have just been proven and expand upon them to provide further data. They are becoming a corporate enterprise who brings big drills in once a pioneer has made the risky discovery of oil. I can only guess this is down to the constant funding threats NASA face each year as governments try harder to justify tangible reasons for the organisation.

If the folks involved in this "new" design had instead put their considerable brain power to helping with the problems of fusion and anti matter power generation, we might actually have something useful come out of it. Sadly Joe public doesn't tend to pull their hair out in excitement when you tell them you just made a full five seconds of free fusion. Lets just put out some cool cgi of shiny space rockets and say our boffins know how to travel like Kirk and Spock.

[henri51]

ORIGINAL: pycco

and fusion once started will sustain it self with the power its putting out and still have enough power to power most if not all of other systems. the sub light engines are tricky though as there is no air in space so fuel that we use would not work, so its more of a giant hammer than an engine to give the ship sub light speed

No, rockets do not need air to work (but they do need fuel): as long as you are throwing something out of the back, you move forward.

Henri

[pycco]

ORIGINAL: henri51

ORIGINAL: pycco

and fusion once started will sustain it self with the power its putting out and still have enough power to power most if not all of other systems. the sub light engines are tricky though as there is no air in space so fuel that we use would not work, so its more of a giant hammer than an engine to give the ship sub light speed

No, rockets do not need air to work (but they do need fuel): as long as you are throwing something out of the back, you move forward.

Henri

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/c ... m03470.htm

yes they do, all of are propulsion technology does.